SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Thairu v Registered Trustees Fatima Mission Hospital (Cause 1708 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 65 (KLR) (27 May 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 65 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
65
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 65 (KLR)
Decided
27 May 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeUnfair DismissalPostureDefendedCoramJAMES RIKA
Holding

The Court declared the termination unfair and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs. 221,375 in compensation for unfair termination and Kshs. 44,275 in notice compensation. The Court declined the prayer for punitive and aggravated damages.

Facts

The Claimant, Solomon Githinji Thairu, was employed as a Nurse Anaesthetist by the Respondent, Registered Trustees Fatima Mission Hospital, from January 1, 2005, with a monthly salary of Kshs. 30,000. He was suspended without pay on February 20, 2016, and was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed on March 21, 2017. The Claimant sought compensation for salary in lieu of notice, cell phone allowance, unremitted deductions, lost dividends and interests, uniform allowance, and gratuity.

Issues

  1. Unfair dismissal
  2. Unremitted deductions
  3. Cell phone allowance
  4. Lost dividends and interests
  5. Uniform allowance
  6. Gratuity

Reasoning

The Claimant failed to establish the prayer for punitive and aggravated damages as it was not a constitutional dispute. The other prayers were declined due to lack of evidence.

Outcome

The Claimant won the case.

Orders

  • It is declared that termination was unfair.
  • The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant: Kshs. 221,375 in compensation for unfair termination; and notice at Kshs. 44,275 – Kshs. 265,650.
  • Costs to the Claimant.

Remedies

  • Compensation for unfair termination
  • Notice compensation
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case